Everyday somebody complains that the government is not taking the right actions or that our government is insufficient and that they are accomplishing nothing. But what people fail to realize is that being a politician is not easy. They are in charge of the entire country and it is impossible to please everybody. Not one person has the exact same opinions as another. Our national government does what they think is best for the country. Although I know and understand that some politicians have alterative motives most go in with an idea that they are going to do what is best for the country.
I feel that before a person has the right to critic they need to understand how the system works and why a politician voted the way they did. People need to also understand what it is that the politician is voting on. Everybody has an opinion but the opinion is more valid if the person truly understands what it is about. It reminds me of the way people vote. Half of America goes and votes for the party that they associate themselves with without taking a good look at the candidates opinions, beliefs and what he plans to do. So in the end does America really know who they are voting for?
This brings me to the topic of political parties REPUBLICAN or DEMOCRAT? I think that there should definitely be more political parties to choose from. Like I said earlier everyone has different opinions and we are all not going to fall perfectly in group or another. I also believe that people should have more respect for other people’s opinions and beliefs. No one said that you have to believe something else but you do have to respect it. Again the worlds not perfect and I know I am thinking like I young naive girl but you can not tell me that would not be awesome. If your not republican or Democrat it becomes hard for your opinion to be spoken and accepted. I would love for an independent party’s nominee to be president but realistically that not going to happen.
In conclusion I want more political parties and for people to take time to understand our law making system called our government.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
The Nobel Peace Prize
I read, in an article written by David of the crooks and liars blog that President Barrack Obama was chosen to win the Nobel Peace Prize. On Fox news Liz Cheney said that the peace prize should be dedicated to U.S soldiers and that in order for this peace prize to be legit a mother of a fallen American soldier should go and accept this prize on behalf of the U.S military.
David intended to write this to show people the falseness in Obama accepting this prize. Although I know nothing about David as a credible writer his information is completely credible because it comes from politicians debating what Obama should have done with the Peace prize but all in all it is just one mans opinion.
Their argument is that Obama does not deserve this Prize and I completely agree. The men in charge of awarding this prize are against Americanism and they gave Obama this prize because they think he is changing the American way. Bill Kristol disagrees with the Nobel committee. He responded to the award with sarcasm. "It's hard for me to be objective about this because I'm so disappointed personally. I was up early Friday morning. I thought the phone might ring, you know. Pundits for peace. I deserve it pretty much. President Obama and I have done about the same amount to bring about world peace, I think," said Kristol.
They also argue that each one of Nobel committee members sleeps soundly at night because the U.S. armed forces, because the U.S. military is the greatest peacekeeping force in the world today. The politicians want Obama to not except this prize, but because that is not going to happen they want him to go and make a good example of Americans and to speak well of the American army.
I agree completely with the ideals of these liberal politicians, why does Obama deserve the Peace Prize? What has he done differently than others? I want Obama to go make a speech defending the American way and bring along with him a mother of a fallen soldier to make the point clear, we are still in a war!
David intended to write this to show people the falseness in Obama accepting this prize. Although I know nothing about David as a credible writer his information is completely credible because it comes from politicians debating what Obama should have done with the Peace prize but all in all it is just one mans opinion.
Their argument is that Obama does not deserve this Prize and I completely agree. The men in charge of awarding this prize are against Americanism and they gave Obama this prize because they think he is changing the American way. Bill Kristol disagrees with the Nobel committee. He responded to the award with sarcasm. "It's hard for me to be objective about this because I'm so disappointed personally. I was up early Friday morning. I thought the phone might ring, you know. Pundits for peace. I deserve it pretty much. President Obama and I have done about the same amount to bring about world peace, I think," said Kristol.
They also argue that each one of Nobel committee members sleeps soundly at night because the U.S. armed forces, because the U.S. military is the greatest peacekeeping force in the world today. The politicians want Obama to not except this prize, but because that is not going to happen they want him to go and make a good example of Americans and to speak well of the American army.
I agree completely with the ideals of these liberal politicians, why does Obama deserve the Peace Prize? What has he done differently than others? I want Obama to go make a speech defending the American way and bring along with him a mother of a fallen soldier to make the point clear, we are still in a war!
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Abortion is a Chioce
There are many people against the new health care reform. Their complaint is that they do not want government to dictate what medical procedures can be done. But the fact is that government already does. Anti-abortion congressmen want to eliminate health plans that would cover abortion. The final proposal stated that it would prohibit the use of federal tax subsidies to pay for almost all abortions. Health plans could provide abortion coverage provided they used only the premium money and co-payments contributed by beneficiaries and kept that money segregated from the subsidy. In every state, there would have to be at least one plan that covers abortions and one that does not.
This editorial about health care reform and abortion was written by an unknown author. Therefore I have no idea how credible he is. He made a weak argument against the proposal. His editorial was manly a summary of the story plus one paragraph of his own opinion. This piece was written for an audience aged around 30-40 years old and people interested in politics. I think in order for this to be a good opinion piece he needs to add more of his opinion into his story. Although i agree with what opinions he did have, such as no restrictions on abortion coverage, overall this was a poorly written opinion article. I feel that he wrote this article with many facts that seem factual but when coming to his opinion he wanted to play it safe and not hurt any ones feelings. Not only is his opinion debth weak so are his reasons as to why he thinks what he thinks.
Overall this was a logically factual article more so than an opinion piece. He needs reasons for his argument and he needs facts to back it up. In general he just needs more of an opinion. He does not need to play it safe or worry about peoples feelings while writing an article with his opinion.
This editorial about health care reform and abortion was written by an unknown author. Therefore I have no idea how credible he is. He made a weak argument against the proposal. His editorial was manly a summary of the story plus one paragraph of his own opinion. This piece was written for an audience aged around 30-40 years old and people interested in politics. I think in order for this to be a good opinion piece he needs to add more of his opinion into his story. Although i agree with what opinions he did have, such as no restrictions on abortion coverage, overall this was a poorly written opinion article. I feel that he wrote this article with many facts that seem factual but when coming to his opinion he wanted to play it safe and not hurt any ones feelings. Not only is his opinion debth weak so are his reasons as to why he thinks what he thinks.
Overall this was a logically factual article more so than an opinion piece. He needs reasons for his argument and he needs facts to back it up. In general he just needs more of an opinion. He does not need to play it safe or worry about peoples feelings while writing an article with his opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)